Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.
|
I know what you're saying, but I think there is only a threat of massive spreading (and the resultant heightened possibility that the civil disobedience will eventually be ratified) when there is already a very large proportion of the population in strong support of the movement. Had this been my NAMBLA example, it would be shut down in a minute. But, for basic civil rights issues, where nothing has been happening for years out of inertia while the question is hotly debated, this forces the issue.
It will still have to go through the official path of the courts, but at least this way, it will be ruled on. And, I like the idea that each locality will get a crack at enacting its own idea of what marriage is, instead of a national vote that tells SF that it can't do that. Atticus must hate this "state's discretion" movement. It fractures us. But, on some issues, maybe we should be fractured.
